Tanks in Combat. (War Dept. Bulletin)

[John Kettler]

Came across this, and since most of the front end is the MTO, I'm putting it here. Visual quality isn't great (murky), but there's some good stuff. Also, at the end there's some eye-popping footage of tanks with infantry, and I do mean with, as they shoot the infantry onto the objective. Yet again, I pine for the ability to screen troops behind a moving AFV! There are only cast hull Shermans in this 1942 film.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 26, 2017 by John Kettler

[General Jack Ripper]

It never works quite so easily as they show in the films, does it?

[Badger73]

2 hours ago, SLIM said:

It never works quite so easily as they show in the films, does it?

I always thought that was because I wasn't following the film correctly . . . . 

[John Kettler]

Guys,

One of the reasons our ability to get tanks and infantry working together effectively is that unlike real soldiers, ours have no cover from being behind the tank as it moves. Yet in practically any conflict with AFVs involved, you'll see infantry taking advantage of that reality. Indeed, over on CMBS, you can see Russian proxies doing the same thing behind a BTR. This has the effect of depriving our PBI of a lot of protection which was there on the battlefields of the world, down though the best part of a century. It galls me no end that neither CMx1 or CMx2 has ever attempted to model this. We know BFC has saving throws for other situations, and it seems to me some rule, procedure or order tab could be implemented. For example, a squad could be designated as providing close support (has to be within some defined distance) for a tank and would receive some sort of saving throw reflecting this.   WRG rules I recall reading ages ago assigned positive values to troops with nearby friendly armor and forced those on the receiving end to test to see how they'd hold or not when under armored attack. Specialized tank desensitization training was, I believe, factored in, too. I've seen some footage from French Foreign Legion training in which the recruit is lying belly down on the pavement, with an AMX-13 coming right at him. He's required to stay in place util the tank is at arm's length, whereupon he reaches out, touches the tread and rolls out of the way. The one I saw had the tread being to the trooper's left, so when he rolled clear, he was away from the tank altogether.

Further, the fundamental issue of infantry behavior when cover is available predates AFVs. I've seen accounts from the ACW, if not earlier, in which a column of troops positioned itself behind a big tree waiting to be called into action. Though the men would shift their position depending upon where the (lead) wind was blowing from, the column stayed in formation but pivoted about that tree. This has been remarked upon in battle accounts I've seen.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[Wicky]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

It galls me no end that neither CMx1 or CMx2 has ever attempted to model this.

Park a tank (bigger the better ;-)  in front of a machine gun with some troops immediately behind the tank and you'll find incoming MG fire is deflected - though crunchies aren't too happy when it's a sizable volume with richochets flying about...

 

[Wicky]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

I've seen some footage from French Foreign Legion training in which the recruit is lying belly down on the pavement, with an AMX-13 coming right at him. He's required to stay in place util the tank is at arm's length, whereupon he reaches out, touches the tread and rolls out of the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36849173/turkey-coup-attempt-i-was-run-over-by-two-tanks

It gets messy if unlucky at 'arm's length'...

 

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Regarding the first, thanks. Is the tank static? Steve has flat out said there is no dynamic cover and, I believe, none coming, either. Regarding the second, blech! So glad I wasn't eating when I saw that, else my computer, keyboard and desk would need immediate decontam. The video does, sadly,  show exactly why the armor types call infantry crunchies.

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

As posted, and shown above, friendly tanks DO give cover, both static and dynamic. I don't know (or care) where the opinion came from that they do not.

What they (by "they", I mean friendly vehicles) DON'T do, is provide cover to the ENEMY. Your men can shoot through your tanks. The enemy cannot. This simulates the micro-positioning necessary to fire around a friendly/cooperative AFV. We can't do that positioning in the game, so the code allows it. Yes, this does create some asymmetries, but, overall, it works very well.

Do some tests.

[Apocal]

On 7/27/2017 at 7:27 AM, John Kettler said:

Is the tank static? Steve has flat out said there is no dynamic cover and, I believe, none coming, either.

Moving tanks deflect small arms rounds in CMx2 and have since day 1. Putting AFVs two abreast on narrow roads with infantry behind was something the first CMBN players did to push troops forwards while avoiding the hedgerows. I don't know how often that was done in RL Normandy, but it definitely works in-game. Basically anything with any appreciable armor works too, not just full AFVs.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Apocal

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎29‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 11:19 AM, Apocal said:

I don't know how often that was done in RL Normandy, but it definitely works in-game.

Sounds about spot on to me, not just in Normandy either, pretty much ever since there was such a thing as a tank.....Just read the reports from WWI. 

[Michael Emrys]

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Sounds about spot on to me, not just in Normandy either, pretty much ever since there was such a thing as a tank.....Just read the reports from WWI. 

There is a photograph—from the invasion of Norway, I think—of a Pz. II making its way down a street with an entire squad of infantry huddled behind it, shuffling along.

Michael

[transporter]

At 1:06 in the tank movie it shows a tank with the 50 cal mounted in front of the commanders position.  It would be a nice option for us.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's the same old .50cal mount, the cupola has merely been rotated to bring the gun mount forward.

[Ivan Zaitzev]

I don't know how often the cover behind tanks was done IRL. Tanks tend to attract a lot of attention and you don't want to be around when it blows up.

[Apocal]

2 hours ago, Ivan Zaitzev said:

I don't know how often the cover behind tanks was done IRL. Tanks tend to attract a lot of attention and you don't want to be around when it blows up.

Often enough:

In David Hackworth's biography, Brave Men, he mentioned an incident during the Korean War:

"There were dead and wounded everywhere. Slugs were ricocheting off the ice; we could see sparks where they hit. Jim Parker's 2nd Platoon had successfully silenced an enemy machine gun to our left, so the pressure was off enough for us to get our wounded behind the protection of the tanks and paddy wall, where they could be patched up. Our progress was hampered, though, because the tank crews kept moving their tanks. They didn't stop to think they were exposing our wounded all over again; they were too busy trying to save their own armor-coated skins. I told the tank lieutenant, whom I'd come to view -- and treat accordingly -- as a recruit at Fort Knox, that the next time a tank moved and exposed our guys, I'd fire a 3.5 bazooka right up its ass. There was no more movement."

Edited August 5, 2017 by Apocal

[Sgt.Squarehead]

And for quite a while:

[Ivan Zaitzev]

Have you noticed the photographer is not behind the tank? Most photos are posed.

In the first one there is even a guy standing right in the open.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

He wasn't in on the photo-shoot clearly.....But it does still demonstrate soldiers doing what they would normally do when cooperating with tanks (IMHO).

Edited August 5, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Ivan Zaitzev]

7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

He wasn't in on the photo-shoot clearly.....

There is always a Captain Willard.

 

[Apocal]

6 hours ago, Ivan Zaitzev said:

Have you noticed the photographer is not behind the tank? Most photos are posed.

In the first one there is even a guy standing right in the open.

Probably because not many people are bold enough to shoot with a tank pointed their way in real life. Any way you slice it, there are a lot fewer things on the battlefield that can hurt a tank compared to an infantryman and they are relatively rare on the battlefield. Most of the times a tank showed up in WW2, it straight-up trumped everything present. Wargamers just studiously avoid those periods of fighting because they don't typically make for good scenarios.

Or they "sexy" them up by adding a bunch of tigers, high-tier AT, well-trained and borderline suicidal infantry, etc. to make what was IRL a curbstomp into a relatively even fight.

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, Apocal said:

Most of the times a tank showed up in WW2, it straight-up trumped everything present. Wargamers just studiously avoid those periods of fighting because they don't typically make for good scenarios.

Or they "sexy" them up by adding a bunch of tigers, high-tier AT, well-trained and borderline suicidal infantry, etc. to make what was IRL a curbstomp into a relatively even fight.

I agree. Just for kicks, I set up a QB to replicate as well as is currently possible with the state of the game in BN the conditions that, say, prevailed between the Panzerwaffe and the French infantry in 1940. As the defenders, I chose a battalion of Luftwaffe and for the attacker a company of armored infantry reinforced by a company of Shermans with two platoons of Stuarts thrown in and supported by lots of artillery. As you might expect, it was pretty much of a rout. The game automatically made the Luftwaffe mostly green and the Americans were mostly regular and veteran. This pretty well replicated the 1940 situation. And while the Germans in this game were still capable of hurting any infantry that was incautious, for the most part they were impotent and with brittle morale.

Historically, the French changed their tactics and did a little better later in the campaign, but by then it was too late. By the time that the Germans had reached the English Channel, the battle had been essentially lost.

Michael